More clarity sought on Obama civilian Afghan plan

An Afghan national army soldier sits with children from Shadal village in Khowst province, Afghanistan, December 7, 2009.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy gives military timelines but experts say it is too vague when it comes to sustainable development work or commitments on areas like women's rights and rule of law.

In a speech last week to announce his new plan -- which includes sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- Obama underscored the goal was not nation-building and gave July 2011 as a date when U.S. forces would start withdrawing,

But development and human rights experts are pressing for more information about the civilian side of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and want signs of a long-term commitment there from reducing poverty to establishing rule of law.

"The unmet basic needs of the Afghan people are tremendous," said Sam Worthington, president of InterAction, an aid body representing more than 150 U.S. humanitarian groups.

"It is imperative that these be addressed. The U.S. must commit to a comprehensive development strategy centered on poverty reduction," Worthington added in a statement.

The Obama administration is conducting what it calls a "civilian surge" in Afghanistan, promising to have 1,000 U.S. experts in place by the end of the year, triple the number from when President George W. Bush left office in January.

Civilians going there include agriculture specialists, rule of law experts, economists and accountants, some of whom will be attached to Afghan ministries to try to improve a government known for corruption and mismanagement.

"We will help by working to strengthen institutions at every level of Afghan society so that we don't leave chaos behind when our combat troops begin to depart," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers last week.

But Rachel Reid, a researcher for the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said a glaring omission from Obama's speech was women's rights in Afghanistan where the government has failed to protect them from rape, murder and other atrocities.

"While the world focuses on the Obama administration's new security strategy, it's critical to make sure that women's and girls' rights don't just get lip service," said Reid.

"I also worry from a human rights perspective that a counter-insurgency strategy done on the quick will mean compromises when it comes to rule of law," she added.

For example, the rush to train Afghan police and army meant some training was being shortened. "Some of the rule of law stuff goes to the wayside," she said.

TOO MUCH SHORT-TERM FOCUS?

Another concern voiced by some development experts is that because of the military timetable, there might be more emphasis on 12-18 month programs rather than long-term projects.

In addition, aid will also likely be directed at areas where the insurgency was strongest rather than more evenly distributed, said Alex Thier, an Afghanistan expert with the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington.

"Effective development and stabilization of Afghanistan requires that resources be more evenly distributed," he said.

Experts also question if there will be enough civilian experts in place to help implement these plans, a criticism in the past.

There are several pots of money for aid in Afghanistan, including about $1.2 billion in the latest budget for U.S. military commanders to pay for urgent, small-scale projects.

In addition, the U.S. government's aid agency, USAID, budgets around $2 billion in annual development aid for Afghanistan.

Many of the U.S. civilians work alongside the military in what are called Provincial Reconstruction Teams, a concept whereby the military secures an area and then provides protection for experts who help rebuild those communities.

The blurring of lines between civilian and military has raised hackles with aid workers who are concerned too much money is being diverted to counterinsurgency activities, said Andrew Wilder of Tufts University.

"I am skeptical of the assumption that the aid development piece needs to be central to our counter-insurgency strategy ... that places an unrealistic burden on development to do what development is not well-suited to do, which is to defeat insurgencies," he said.

While improving governance in Afghanistan is a big goal of the United States, its own alliances are also under scrutiny.

One example has been the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who The New York Times said had received regular payments from the CIA. Karzai's brother has been linked to the drug trade.

"The Afghan government might not take them (U.S.) seriously unless they actually make a break from these characters themselves," said Reid from Human Rights Watch.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)